Nikon 28-70 f2.8 (Page 4): That is a 24-70mm Jack, NOT the 28-70mm that is the subject of the conversation.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

jack schade wrote:

I bought one new from B&H a few months ago. It has proven to be a great lens for sport photography. It is very sharp and the nano crystal coating helps with clarity.
Jack

That is a 24-70mm Jack, NOT the 28-70mm that is the subject of the conversation.

carl hervol Loc: jacksonville florida

Ive got a tamron 28/75 F2/8 which i ran a test on the tamron and the nikon and found the tamron a bit sharper . and was $360.00 non vr which i like so well i bought another which i used for weddings.

Bozsik Loc: Orangevale, California

juicesqueezer wrote:

I am interested in purchasing Nikon's 28-70 f2.8 lens and was wondering if any hog members have this lens and what is their findings with regards to sharpness, etc.?
I would like to purchase the 24-70, but right now, a little out of my budget.
Any input would be most appreciated. If you have one you would like to part with, please pm me.

Thanks!

Got one. Use it regularly. Excellent optics. Super sharp. About the only thing different than the 24-70 is it doesn't have VR and 4mm less coverage.

It is a fairly hefty lens though. For the price, which is about $800ish depending on the condition, a great buy. I carry it in my vest pocket and swap it with my 16-35 when in the field.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Bozsik wrote:

Got one. Use it regularly. Excellent optics. Super sharp. About the only thing different than the 24-70 is it doesn't have VR and 4mm less coverage.

It is a fairly hefty lens though. For the price, which is about $800ish depending on the condition, a great buy. I carry it in my vest pocket and swap it with my 16-35 when in the field.

The 24-70 doesn't have VR. Which is one problem that I have with the new 70-200mm. There is so much electronics added for the VRII, that the lens has become a tank. It's so heavy that I can see that handholding it would become a problem, so why even have the VR?

saxkiwi Loc: New Zealand

juicesqueezer wrote:

I am interested in purchasing Nikon's 28-70 f2.8 lens and was wondering if any hog members have this lens and what is their findings with regards to sharpness, etc.?
I would like to purchase the 24-70, but right now, a little out of my budget.
Any input would be most appreciated. If you have one you would like to part with, please pm me.

Thanks!

I have it and see no need to upgrade to the 24-70. It is a sharp lens :thumbup:

juicesqueezer Loc: Okeechobee, Florida

ronlcox wrote:

I have had one for years, after purchasing an FX camera it became my walk around lens. Love it, sharp and reliable. Recently had to send in for repair as the auto focus quite working but going great guns now. Would sell mine as I would like to up grade to the 24-70, it is about 10 years old and in good shape. (I'm a hobbyist not a pro).

PM sent.

juicesqueezer Loc: Okeechobee, Florida

Bozsik wrote:

Got one. Use it regularly. Excellent optics. Super sharp. About the only thing different than the 24-70 is it doesn't have VR and 4mm less coverage.

It is a fairly hefty lens though. For the price, which is about $800ish depending on the condition, a great buy. I carry it in my vest pocket and swap it with my 16-35 when in the field.

Agree, it is a heavy lens, but that doesn't bother me either. When I carry the 70-200 f2.8 around all day, that lens would seem much lighter! lol

juicesqueezer Loc: Okeechobee, Florida

saxkiwi wrote:

I have it and see no need to upgrade to the 24-70. It is a sharp lens :thumbup:

Thank you! This is the one range that I am missing now. I recently sold all my DX lenses and just purchased the Nikon 16mm fisheye. Great lens and wide open, distortion is at a minimum.

Bozsik Loc: Orangevale, California

juicesqueezer wrote:

Agree, it is a heavy lens, but that doesn't bother me either. When I carry the 70-200 f2.8 around all day, that lens would seem much lighter! lol

That is the same way I feel. I have a home-made modified vest. I carry the 27-70, the 105 micro and the 16-35 lenses with me and swap them onto the tripod when necessary. The other body has the 80-400 on it.

Since I use the tripod a lot, the VR isn't a real big deal maker/breaker for me.

KVM

I have a Nikon 24-85 2.8 to 4.5 non VR that I will part with.
It has a Macro setting also.

juicesqueezer Loc: Okeechobee, Florida

stan0301 wrote:

It is sharp--but what on Earth are you going to use it for?--not wide enough to be wide-not long enough even to do portraits--I have 2 28-70 f2.8 and I can't even remember the last time i used one (probably for Proms)--for which it is good and sort of OK for weddings.
Stan

Stan, I'm interested if you are willing to sell one of those.

Bozsik Loc: Orangevale, California

Bozsik wrote:

That is the same way I feel. I have a home-made modified vest. I carry the 27-70, the 105 micro and the 16-35 lenses with me and swap them onto the tripod when necessary. The other body has the 80-400 on it.

Since I use the tripod a lot, the VR isn't a real big deal maker/breaker for me.

Sorry for the typo. I meant 28-70.

Bozsik Loc: Orangevale, California

stan0301 wrote:

It is sharp--but what on Earth are you going to use it for?--not wide enough to be wide-not long enough even to do portraits--I have 2 28-70 f2.8 and I can't even remember the last time i used one (probably for Proms)--for which it is good and sort of OK for weddings.
Stan

Just curious. If it isn't useful for anything. Why did you buy 2 of them?

juicesqueezer Loc: Okeechobee, Florida

Bozsik wrote:

Just curious. If it isn't useful for anything. Why did you buy 2 of them?

I've tried contacting him on a possible purchase of one of those lenses and have heard nothing yet.
Hopefully, he will see my PM I sent as well.

Bozsik Loc: Orangevale, California

juicesqueezer wrote:

I've tried contacting him on a possible purchase of one of those lenses and have heard nothing yet.
Hopefully, he will see my PM I sent as well.

I find it an outstanding lens. Not quite as wide as the 24-70, but just as sharp and fast - and way less expensive. If you have the full frame body, it is great. I have shot portraits, albeit pet portraits, and find it perfect for that. Don't see why it wouldn't work for people.